At the very least, I have gotten one thing very useful from Whitley Strieber and Jeffrey Kripal's book The Supernatural: the definition of the word "hermeneutics." In graduate school is was used often, but always breezed away with little context or explanation. The professors, it seemed, either couldn't believe that we didn't know what the word meant, or were unclear of it themselves. Not wanting to stand out as an ignoramus, I did not press hard on the teachers for a greater definition, but looked it up myself. The dictionary helped little, claiming it was a term first used by scholars for deciphering the Bible, and then used as a general term for interpreting texts in general. But how?
Kripal explains this "how" very well. The word is taken from the god Hermes, also known as Mercury, the messenger god, but also the god of music, enlightenment (he often is pictured standing on a caduceus, the double snake that now stands for the medical profession), and of tricksters and thieves. But how could he be the god of both knowledge and lies? Because, as Kripal so well explains, knowledge is often found in lies and lies in knowledge. That is, knowledge itself is a trickster: it changes with the interpreter and the interpretation, not only because of the interpreter's lack of knowledge, but because knowledge is also interpretation; that is (again), that knowledge becomes what it is by an active search for it - which constantly changes not only what we know, but - and this is very difficult and significant - what really is. We, in our search for knowledge, change what there is to know. Just like the physics model that tells us that in our experiment, our presence changes the outcome of the experiment, so our penetration into texts, or anything else, changes what is to be known. In the case of texts, we understand them differently under interpretation; in the case of reality, reality as far as we can ever experience it changes as we change. It is a two -way street. In this, we do not have ultimate magical powers, for we are interacting with things or ideas that exist beyond our boundaries, but we do have power. We can change the very ground of reality with interaction.
So knowledge is a trick. We believe it to be "outside" us, but it is also within us, and as such, we change the knowable by what we know. Squirrelly, yes; frustrating, yes; but on thought, it is the way it is, at least for those who are not complete, who are not "one with the universe." I understand now why the professors did not get into the definition of "hermeneutics"; it would have been a class unto itself. In fact, it was a class unto itself, called "Deconstruction" in my day in the 80's (as if this were something new), and it has led to all sorts of cultural and political changes, even though those doing the changes don't understand half of what they are doing. Which is par for the course for a trickster god (who the ancients understood well. How much more intelligent they were on such things).
But to get back to the book and my point, I will say that the word . came up last night when I was trying to understand my discomfort with Strieber since his classic Communion, including this current book. It has always seemed since that great book that he is pulling my leg. Not exactly lying, but exaggerating or manipulating his experiences to produce best sellers. He himself claims to have become financially and personally ruined by Communion, since both materialistic cynics and the religious have turned strongly against him for their respective reasons: one, because his stories defy common reality; and two, because they debunk what we think we know about angels, devils, and the greater cosmic purpose in general. It is exactly here where I begin to disbelieve: really? UFO and ESP "experts" have been making hay off their books for years, often precisely because they infuriate different parts of cultural orthodoxy. For instance, what good UFOlogist would ever sell a book if he did not say that the science of aliens was being hidden by the government and debunked purposefully to hide the grand and horrible truth? And religion - do readers of the "weird" really only want an orthodox explanation for alien invasions? That, in fact, is often the ground for a winning hermeneutics, a re-reading of the Bible or the Talmud or whatever to show that they are texts about other dimensions or aliens and so on. In the world of fringe knowledge, nothing could be more alluring than someone who is challenging orthodoxy.
So then, what is Strieber's game? I believe he is playing both thief and bringer of knowledge, just like Hermes. As he explains in this book, he was long a student of the Gurdjieff school, the founder himself known both as a rascal and raconteur as well as a man of incredible psychic and intellectual power, and it seems he has learned the lessons well. As Kripal states, one of the ways to know the ultimate, as the mystic Meister Eckhart put it, is to "say away" the images and understandings of God to reach God (Eckhart was not a trickster, but a serious Christian who found that God was beyond anything that could be taught). And so it is that Strieber is clearly 'saying away' everything we think we know about UFOs and the paranormal alike, while also profiting from it - or maybe not. Much like Carlos Castaneda in his Don Juan books, he puts himself away as a mystery, just as he believes both he and all of us and everything are. He has become the trickster, to throw us off of every track he can imagine. He probably is a trickster even to himself, not knowing the half of what he does - or much less, for he would be the first to say that we don't know what we are; that we are much much more than any think, and when we think we know, we are only fooling ourselves - and the trick again turns against us.
So Strieber, whether he knows it or not, is keeping us on our toes. Seen in this light, it makes me feel less like I've been hustled when I read his stuff. And one thing is for sure - when he gets to his storytelling of supposed real-life experiences, the reader is destabilized profoundly - expertly and wonderfully so. And that, I suppose, has always been the trickster's reason for being - to take away what we know so that we might know much more. FK
Kripal explains this "how" very well. The word is taken from the god Hermes, also known as Mercury, the messenger god, but also the god of music, enlightenment (he often is pictured standing on a caduceus, the double snake that now stands for the medical profession), and of tricksters and thieves. But how could he be the god of both knowledge and lies? Because, as Kripal so well explains, knowledge is often found in lies and lies in knowledge. That is, knowledge itself is a trickster: it changes with the interpreter and the interpretation, not only because of the interpreter's lack of knowledge, but because knowledge is also interpretation; that is (again), that knowledge becomes what it is by an active search for it - which constantly changes not only what we know, but - and this is very difficult and significant - what really is. We, in our search for knowledge, change what there is to know. Just like the physics model that tells us that in our experiment, our presence changes the outcome of the experiment, so our penetration into texts, or anything else, changes what is to be known. In the case of texts, we understand them differently under interpretation; in the case of reality, reality as far as we can ever experience it changes as we change. It is a two -way street. In this, we do not have ultimate magical powers, for we are interacting with things or ideas that exist beyond our boundaries, but we do have power. We can change the very ground of reality with interaction.
So knowledge is a trick. We believe it to be "outside" us, but it is also within us, and as such, we change the knowable by what we know. Squirrelly, yes; frustrating, yes; but on thought, it is the way it is, at least for those who are not complete, who are not "one with the universe." I understand now why the professors did not get into the definition of "hermeneutics"; it would have been a class unto itself. In fact, it was a class unto itself, called "Deconstruction" in my day in the 80's (as if this were something new), and it has led to all sorts of cultural and political changes, even though those doing the changes don't understand half of what they are doing. Which is par for the course for a trickster god (who the ancients understood well. How much more intelligent they were on such things).
But to get back to the book and my point, I will say that the word . came up last night when I was trying to understand my discomfort with Strieber since his classic Communion, including this current book. It has always seemed since that great book that he is pulling my leg. Not exactly lying, but exaggerating or manipulating his experiences to produce best sellers. He himself claims to have become financially and personally ruined by Communion, since both materialistic cynics and the religious have turned strongly against him for their respective reasons: one, because his stories defy common reality; and two, because they debunk what we think we know about angels, devils, and the greater cosmic purpose in general. It is exactly here where I begin to disbelieve: really? UFO and ESP "experts" have been making hay off their books for years, often precisely because they infuriate different parts of cultural orthodoxy. For instance, what good UFOlogist would ever sell a book if he did not say that the science of aliens was being hidden by the government and debunked purposefully to hide the grand and horrible truth? And religion - do readers of the "weird" really only want an orthodox explanation for alien invasions? That, in fact, is often the ground for a winning hermeneutics, a re-reading of the Bible or the Talmud or whatever to show that they are texts about other dimensions or aliens and so on. In the world of fringe knowledge, nothing could be more alluring than someone who is challenging orthodoxy.
So then, what is Strieber's game? I believe he is playing both thief and bringer of knowledge, just like Hermes. As he explains in this book, he was long a student of the Gurdjieff school, the founder himself known both as a rascal and raconteur as well as a man of incredible psychic and intellectual power, and it seems he has learned the lessons well. As Kripal states, one of the ways to know the ultimate, as the mystic Meister Eckhart put it, is to "say away" the images and understandings of God to reach God (Eckhart was not a trickster, but a serious Christian who found that God was beyond anything that could be taught). And so it is that Strieber is clearly 'saying away' everything we think we know about UFOs and the paranormal alike, while also profiting from it - or maybe not. Much like Carlos Castaneda in his Don Juan books, he puts himself away as a mystery, just as he believes both he and all of us and everything are. He has become the trickster, to throw us off of every track he can imagine. He probably is a trickster even to himself, not knowing the half of what he does - or much less, for he would be the first to say that we don't know what we are; that we are much much more than any think, and when we think we know, we are only fooling ourselves - and the trick again turns against us.
So Strieber, whether he knows it or not, is keeping us on our toes. Seen in this light, it makes me feel less like I've been hustled when I read his stuff. And one thing is for sure - when he gets to his storytelling of supposed real-life experiences, the reader is destabilized profoundly - expertly and wonderfully so. And that, I suppose, has always been the trickster's reason for being - to take away what we know so that we might know much more. FK
RSS Feed